Populist conservatism

“I call it ‘populist conservatism’ but it’s really just conservativism. Conservatism is about seeing the world as it is.”

This entry was posted in Conservative politics. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Populist conservatism

  1. Confused Old Misfit

    And Canadians threw him out for the Liberals.
    Canada, you are so screwed.

  2. Herodotus

    Seeing the world as it is now is not a pretty sight for conservatives.

  3. a happy little debunker

    And Canadians threw him out for the Liberals.
    Canada, you are so screwed.

    And Australian Liberals threw over Abbott for Turnbull.
    Australia you are standing in it! *

    * A.k.a – a badly aging 80’s sketch show!

  4. Pyrmonter

    What exactly is this ‘conservatism’? Fealty of husband to wife – surely the family is the bedrock of a conservative? Or, skepticism about grand government building programs – surely a conservative doubts both the motives and methods of government in proportion to the grandiloquence with which the program is propounded? Or opposition to crony capitalism: surely every conservative holds that justice and trade policy should not (as John promised 800 years ago) be bought or sold?

  5. md

    I notice he avoids addressing specific issues. And, of course, we have to ask why he didn’t do something about it when he had the chance.

  6. Iampeter

    “Protect Our Jobs” and “Reduce Our Taxes” slogans on the screen at the same time?
    They should also include similarly logical slogans such as, “Have Your Cake” and “Eat It Too.”

    “I call it ‘populist conservatism’ but it’s really just conservativism. Conservatism is about seeing the world as it is.”

    It’s really just called leftism. The kind of leftism conservatives offer: politically illiterate, with a heavy dose of religious kookiness.

    Supporting this farce means you don’t see anything about the world and have no idea how anything works.

  7. Hugh

    I’m not convinced by Harper’s reasoning.

    Forget about “globalization”: within any one country, innovation can wipe out traditional jobs and lifestyles. The automobile very quickly destroyed the centuries-old horse and coach industry. Huge numbers of citizens – including the poor – benefited. Is Harper implying we should have impeded the spread of the automobile, so that traditional lifestyles would not be disrupted, notwithstanding that certain poor people would then miss out on a windfall gain? What exactly would be the criteria as to how that would be rationally determined?

    If we can’t answer this question about the impact of innovation within a country, we can’t answer it on a global level. To put it another way, if we decide that intra-national “disruption” by market innovation should be tolerated, even if it wipes out traditional local communities, it’s hard to argue, IMO, why analogous disruption from beyond the national border should be prevented by the coercive arm of the state.

  8. Kneel


    “Protect Our Jobs” and “Reduce Our Taxes” slogans on the screen at the same time?
    They should also include similarly logical slogans such as, “Have Your Cake” and “Eat It Too.”

    Hmm, let’s check then, OK?
    People sick of low paying jobs and high taxes, so elect the Outsider because, really, how much worse could it be anyway?
    Trump, as promised, reduces taxes, getting US companies to move profits and plants back to the US, many small to medium companies pass on a much deserved and overdue pay rise now that they can actually afford it, consumer confidence goes up, business confidence goes up, employment numbers get better, fed is RAISING rates mildly (again), or at least talking about it…
    Gee, sure sounds like – in this case at least – reducing taxes means a bigger cake, so even after everyone has had a bite, there’s still the same amount left over as the entire cake you had before. So yeah, they had their cake and they ate it too!
    Your mistake, I believe, was to treat this as a purely US internal matter – it IS, but the changes affected cash flows of US companies in international terms, as well as international manufacturing terms – where they make stuff and where they pay tax on their profits. Small changes here make big differences to the “small end of town” – much bigger than the effects on the big end, which is why the big end doesn’t “get it”.
    You can accuse Trump of throwing crumbs to the plebs, but you know what? Crumbs are better than dust, and dust is all the other mob gave ’em!

  9. Iampeter

    I notice he avoids addressing specific issues. And, of course, we have to ask why he didn’t do something about it when he had the chance.

    Woah there cowboy. Are you saying that boilerplate, teenage-level, sloganeering, isn’t specific enough for you? That you expect more from someone who used to be Prime Minister of Canada?

    Stop being utopian!

  10. The BigBlueCat

    Are you saying that boilerplate, teenage-level, sloganeering, isn’t specific enough for you?

    It wouldn’t be for me …

    That you expect more from someone who used to be Prime Minister of Canada?

    It would be good to get more specificity, but I don’t expect it from any ex-PM from any Commonwealth country … it doesn’t suit politicians to be too specific.

    Problem is, there are too many in voter land who want “progressive” and “Socialist” … they want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, and have someone else pay for it. Politicians can’t afford to get these voters offside, so they prefer to remain vague.

  11. CameronH

    This bloke is just like the fake conservatives here. He had multiple terms in government and did nothing to wind back the progressive rot. Just like Fraser and Howard here they just kept capitulating and appeasing the neo Marxists and selling us out.

    This article by Senator Anning describes their cowardice in all it’s sordid dimensions: https://www.xyz.net.au/the-liberal-party-and-the-overton-window/

    Throw the bums out and let’s start again with people like Anning and Bernardi.

  12. max

    ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

    as long as you believe this lies, you are going to get it good and hard and you deserve it.

  13. Iampeter

    It would be good to get more specificity, but I don’t expect it from any ex-PM from any Commonwealth country … it doesn’t suit politicians to be too specific.

    But he’s not anymore. If he was anything other than politically illiterate, he should never have been involved with such a shallow and amateurish video, saying nothing.

    Problem is, there are too many in voter land who want “progressive” and “Socialist” … they want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, and have someone else pay for it.

    Yes. Sadly this includes the overwhelming majority of conservatives. You have to understand that if you reject capitalism, as many here at the cat openly do, you are on the same side as socialists.

  14. The BigBlueCat

    You have to understand that if you reject capitalism, as many here at the cat openly do, you are on the same side as socialists.

    I agree, but they are openly Marxists as well (they know who they are – they are here to troll). Most Cats are Capitalists and keen to see the government protect their property rights and stay the hell out of their personal affairs. To do that, the government needs to get much smaller, and the political parties need to understand the role of government isn’t to interfere with our lives and grab our savings, or to tax us as though we are corporations.

  15. Iampeter

    I agree, but they are openly Marxists as well (they know who they are – they are here to troll).

    Spartacus is Marxist that is here trolling? Fisky, Infidel Tiger, many others? I don’t think so.
    They are just typical of today’s clueless conservatives. They’re not trolling. They have no clue.
    Don’t forget, you’ve also rejected capitalism in a previous thread with me.

    Most Cats are Capitalists and keen to see the government protect their property rights and stay the hell out of their personal affairs.

    All evidence to the contrary.
    Shallow statements that amount to “grrrr socialism” does not make one a capitalist.
    Most posters here, in thread after thread, argue against anyone even remotely putting forward a capitalist or right-of-center political position.

    It’s not just the cat.
    Ben Shapiro just Tweeted how socialism would work if it was run by decent people. I couldn’t make this stuff up.

    I’m not joking around when I’m pointing out that today’s conservative movement is a dumpster fire of politically illiterate leftists.

    I’m being very accurate.

  16. dover_beach

    ‘Capitalism’, the term, is a late-19th century invention, that probably owes more to Marx than anyone else. No idea why anyone on the right ever used or continues to use the term. Smith, for example, never used it. If by it we mean the sort of policies advocated by Smith then I am all for them as a means of pursuing the end of ordered liberty. But they are not ends, and if they actually weaken other bulwarks of ordered liberty, like the family, then those policies will have to be modified.

  17. Iampeter

    If by it we mean the sort of policies advocated by Smith then I am all for them as a means of pursuing the end of ordered liberty. But they are not ends, and if they actually weaken other bulwarks of ordered liberty, like the family, then those policies will have to be modified.

    To be right wing, is to fundamentally view the individual life of the individual as an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others, like “ordered liberty,” which is a dishonest way of saying, “dictatorship.”

    Your position is that of most honest collectivist, conservatives today. I applaud your honesty.
    But your position, like that of all collectivists, makes you a full on leftist and enemy of Western Civilization.

  18. Iampeter

    Sorry, I meant DISHONEST conservative. You are a leftist authoritarian, but will play word games to pretend otherwise.

  19. Kneel

    IamPeePee: “Your position is that of…”

    Perhaps in your twisted sense of logic.

    You are suggesting that to be “right wing” one MUST be libertarian or an anarchist. To be fair, this also means that to be “left wing” one would need to be a communist.

    No middle for you, is there? You’re either “for us or agin us”, right?
    Grow up.

    There are two sides to politics because neither side by itself can keep society working. We swap sides regularly so that we can “tack” against the political winds and actually get where we want to go (although it often takes longer than we hoped) – it’s much easier on the people concerned than starting a revolution.

    I noticed you didn’t bother responding to my “have cake and eat it ” response to you – bit close to the bone, eh? That’s it – run away and post how bad someone else is when you don’t have an answer looks like standard practice for you. Meaning you likely haven’t actually thought about it, you’re just parroting your “thought leaders”.

  20. Iampeter

    You are suggesting that to be “right wing” one MUST be libertarian or an anarchist.

    No dumbass, I’m suggesting that to be right wing you need to be an individualist.
    I literally said this: “To be right wing, is to fundamentally view the individual life of the individual as an end in itself.”
    How the F, did you manage to get “libertarian or anarchist?”

    No middle for you, is there?

    That’s because there IS NO MIDDLE. Just people who don’t understand politics and/or don’t take any ideas seriously.

    There are two sides to politics because neither side by itself can keep society working.

    There are two sides of politics, because there are too many morons who have no idea how the world works.
    The right wing side of politics, can absolutely keep everything working. NOTHING works on the left wing side of politics.
    But thank you for providing yet another example of the generic, clueless, leftism, that is the majority position at the cat.

    I noticed you didn’t bother responding to my “have cake and eat it ” response to you – bit close to the bone, eh?

    I didn’t respond to it because I can’t think of the words required to penetrate such an imbecile that thinks the fact that you can’t have your cake and eat it too, a SELF EVIDENT proposition, could be “responded to.”

  21. dover_beach

    To be right wing, is to fundamentally view the individual life of the individual as an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others, like “ordered liberty,” which is a dishonest way of saying, “dictatorship.”

    I never said that the life of an individual is to be a means to the ends of others. Neither is ordered liberty, which at the very least means precisely what Randians invoke as the duty of the state to protect, in any meaningful sense ‘dictatorial’.

    However, I understand that, given the general weakness of your position, you feel the need to lie and misrepresent your opponents.

  22. Ivan Denisovich

    But they are not ends, and if they actually weaken other bulwarks of ordered liberty, like the family, then those policies will have to be modified.

    An interesting piece by Yoram Hazony:

    For example, the liberal belief that reason is powerful, universal, and reliable has meant that there is, in principle, no need to consult with national and religious tradition, or even to accord such traditions honor and respect. Private individuals can toy with such things, if they so choose. But public life can be conducted perfectly well without them.

    Similarly, the belief that political obligation derives only from the consent of the reasoning individual has meant that political and religious tradition has, in principle, no weight at all, or at least no weight that can be admitted as legitimate. Any political right or freedom that appears at a given moment to be the deliverance of public reason will, within a short time, overthrow any and every traditional institution.

    But is there an alternative? As I observed at the outset, many of our most gifted writers and intellectuals are constantly trying to convince us that we have no choice but to be liberals. It’s either that or Marxism and Fascism. And since these alternatives are appalling—an assertion with which I myself concur—there is, by process of elimination, no alternative but to be a liberal.

    Often I cannot tell whether this claim is simply the product of ignorance, or whether it is intended, by some, to be deliberately misleading. Whatever the case may be, this argument insists that there is no choice but to select one of three anti-religious, anti-traditionalist doctrines of the twentieth century, and that the only course open to us is to choose the least terrible of the three.

    What is obviously suppressed by the constant repetition of this argument is the possibility that there were—until quite recently—conservative alternatives to liberalism that offered a different way of thinking about public life.

    The word “conservative” is usually used as a synonym for “traditionalist”: A conservative is someone who strives to defend and build up the political and intellectual traditions of his or her own tribe or nation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that a conservative needs to defend every last foolish thing that has ever been part of the tradition. Every political tradition undergoes adjustments over time. But if a change is going to be made, then a conservative would like to see such repairs made on the basis of principles internal to the existing order—and always with an eye to strengthening the unique structure of the political order as a whole.

    This means that conservatism is not something like Marxism or liberalism—both of which are universal theories that propose a single answer to the question of the political good for all nations, everywhere on earth, and at all times in history. Unlike these universalist theories, there can be as many different conservatisms as there are national and tribal traditions. There are conservative traditions in China and India, Russia and Germany, that are radically different from ours—and maybe there are certain things that are attractive about each of them, or maybe not. But as a conservative I’m not ­committed to defending them all, nor should you be either.

    What is of interest here is a particular conservative political tradition, the conservative tradition of English-speaking countries, which I will call Anglo-American conservatism. This is a tradition that can be traced back to the Middle Ages. But we may speak of a kind of classical period for this tradition that begins with John Fortescue in the 1470s, and continues with individuals such as Richard Hooker, Sir Edward Coke, John Selden, Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon), Sir Matthew Hale, Sir William Temple, Jonathan Swift, Sir William Blackstone, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke, John Dickinson, John Adams, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton. Scottish philosophers such as David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, and Thomas Reid contributed much to this tradition as well.

    This Anglo-American tradition is described in a recent essay of mine, “What is Conservatism?,” written with Ofir Haivry for American Affairs. In it, we propose that the Anglo-American conservative tradition can be characterized as being built around five principles

    RTWT:

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/01/conservative-democracy

  23. Iampeter

    However, I understand that, given the general weakness of your position, you feel the need to lie and misrepresent your opponents.

    No, it’s just you’re a dishonest leftist, authoritarian, who thinks word games is depth, but it’s really just total ignorance of the subject, on your part. That’s why I generally don’t respond to you. It’s a waste of time to talk to a brick wall.

  24. Iampeter

    For example, the liberal belief that reason is powerful, universal, and reliable has meant that there is, in principle, no need to consult with national and religious tradition, or even to accord such traditions honor and respect. Private individuals can toy with such things, if they so choose. But public life can be conducted perfectly well without them.

    Exactly.

    Similarly, the belief that political obligation derives only from the consent of the reasoning individual has meant that political and religious tradition has, in principle, no weight at all, or at least no weight that can be admitted as legitimate.

    Correct.

    As I observed at the outset, many of our most gifted writers and intellectuals are constantly trying to convince us that we have no choice but to be liberals.

    No one is suggesting that. Conservatives/religion are not alternatives to what this author is incorrectly labelling as “liberals.”

    A conservative is someone who strives to defend and build up the political and intellectual traditions of his or her own tribe or nation.

    Which is another way of saying, conservatives are politically illiterate.

    This author doesn’t seem to understand that politics is fundamentally about individualism vs collectivism and that religion/tradition is collectivism and belongs on the same side of the political spectrum as every other collectivist ideology, from nationalism, to racism, to Nazism and communism.

  25. Iampeter

    This means that conservatism is not something like Marxism or liberalism—both of which are universal theories that propose a single answer to the question of the political good for all nations, everywhere on earth, and at all times in history. Unlike these universalist theories, there can be as many different conservatisms as there are national and tribal traditions.

    LOL yes exactly! Unlike Marxism or “liberalism,” conservatism is a completely unprincipled, incoherent mess.
    This entire article is awesome, as the author correctly catches the essence of things in the first few paragraphs, then proceeds to dismiss them and embrace what even in his own words, is clueless and nonsense.

    This is where disintegrated thinking leads you. This author can’t join the dots and see the mess he’s made for himself.

  26. The BigBlueCat

    Don’t forget, you’ve also rejected capitalism in a previous thread with me.

    Nope … and I went to some length describing my beliefs to you.

    Most posters here, in thread after thread, argue against anyone even remotely putting forward a capitalist or right-of-center political position.

    I’m don’t keep count …

    I’m not joking around when I’m pointing out that today’s conservative movement is a dumpster fire of politically illiterate leftists.

    Yep, probably true.

    Ben Shapiro just Tweeted how socialism would work if it was run by decent people. I couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Ben Shapiro also knows as well as anyone that Socialism won’t be run by decent people. He’s just spit-balling.

    No dumbass, I’m suggesting that to be right wing you need to be an individualist.
    I literally said this: “To be right wing, is to fundamentally view the individual life of the individual as an end in itself.”

    So does an individualist fight for the rights of other individualists? If so, does that make them altruistic and therefore collectivist? Or ok if it makes them happy? And if they don’t fight for their rights or the rights of other individualists, then how do individualists every hope to achieve their political and individual aims? Maybe we should just leave them alone ……

  27. Ivan Denisovich

    This is where disintegrated thinking leads you. This author can’t join the dots and see the mess he’s made for himself.

    LOL. No mirrors at your place? Your contributions on this subject matter on various threads have been notable for disintegrated thinking, as Dover and others have repeatedly pointed out.

  28. dover_beach

    No, it’s just you’re a dishonest leftist, authoritarian, who thinks word games is depth, but it’s really just total ignorance of the subject, on your part. That’s why I generally don’t respond to you. It’s a waste of time to talk to a brick wall.

    Iampeter, you are a study in psychological projection. We all know that the reason you studiously avoid responding to my pointed questions on immigration, for instance, is that you are afraid the answer will jeopardize the entire edifice of Randianism (which is an intellectual prison in which you have voluntarily sought shelter). That is why you engage, when you are most vulnerable, in furious, though comically inept, hyperbole and invective; in order to protect a decrepit and failed ideology.

  29. Iampeter

    Iampeter, you are a study in psychological projection.

    This is a description of you, not me, buddy.

    We all know that the reason you studiously avoid responding to my pointed questions on immigration,

    Except your questions have been thoroughly addressed at great length, in numerous threads.
    Your issue is, you have zero understanding of the topics your are opining on with the tone of an expert.
    No honest discussion is possible with a person as utterly clueless as you and my patience is exhausted.
    You have no business on a politics/economics blog and I assume you’re on the spectrum.

  30. Iampeter

    We all know that the reason you studiously avoid responding to my pointed questions on immigration,

    An individualist/right winger, views every human life as an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others, like religion, or race, or nation state, or family, or insert whatever other collectivist/leftist position you want here.
    In practice this means a government that just maintains the courts, police, armed forces and nothing else.
    In such a society, only rights violations are illegal. Where people live, what substances they abuse, who they marry, how they run their business, etc, are not things the state gets any say in.

  31. Kneel

    “That’s because there IS NO MIDDLE. Just people who don’t understand politics and/or don’t take any ideas seriously.”

    “Your issue is, you have zero understanding…”

    Comedy gold.
    Although I’m sure our beloved Peter won’t get it…

  32. Kneel

    “An individualist/right winger, views every human life as an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others, like religion, or race, or nation state, or family, or insert whatever other collectivist/leftist position you want here.
    In practice this means a government that just maintains the courts, police, armed forces and nothing else.
    In such a society, only rights violations are illegal. Where people live, what substances they abuse, who they marry, how they run their business, etc, are not things the state gets any say in.”

    So, please point me to WHERE such a state exists – remember, by your own standards, not one that’s “almost” there, oh no. No middle, remember? So where are the “pure” left and right nations?
    Don’t exist. Never did. They are ALL , and have ALWAYS BEEN somewhere in the middle – mostly left or mostly right, but never completely.

    (I have no doubt that there will be a “That’s different…” or perhaps “You are an idiot” reply, if any – nothing substantive though, there never is from IAmPeePee)

  33. Gilas

    Troll-feeding is alive and well on the Cat.

    Most amusing..

  34. Iampeter

    So, please point me to WHERE such a state exists – remember, by your own standards, not one that’s “almost” there, oh no. No middle, remember? So where are the “pure” left and right nations?
    Don’t exist. Never did. They are ALL , and have ALWAYS BEEN somewhere in the middle – mostly left or mostly right, but never completely.

    Well, when you post stuff like this, especially with this smug tone, you get called an idiot.
    You seem to be utterly confused between what is vs what should be, vs what the political spectrum is, vs what people think it is, with no idea how any of these things hang together. What are you even trying to argue, though? That because rights protecting governments to the degree I’d like to see them don’t exist, we shouldn’t support them? I mean, what even is this?
    The level of confusion is so total that there’s no point in trying to untangle this.
    Like Dover, I have no idea why you’re on a blog about politics, roleplaying an expert.

  35. JC

    Iamapeter

    When I grow up I want to be just like you .

  36. Iampeter

    JC, I fear the ship on that has sailed a long time ago.

    Your best now and always, will be that of a sperging, triggered, teenage SJW.

    Without the excuse of being a teenager…

  37. dover_beach

    An individualist/right winger, views every human life as an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others, like religion, or race, or nation state, or family, or insert whatever other collectivist/leftist position you want here.
    In practice this means a government that just maintains the courts, police, armed forces and nothing else.
    In such a society, only rights violations are illegal. Where people live, what substances they abuse, who they marry, how they run their business, etc, are not things the state gets any say in.

    If the state can enforce your property rights, it’s a mystery why it can’t police its own territorial jurisdiction given that a community has established such a territorial jurisdiction, and empowered its police force and armed services to preserve its territorial integrity. And just as I can have no right to enter your property, I can have no right to enter a territorial jurisdiction I am not a member of. As of yet, you have presented no counterargument to this simple argument.

    On the issue of marriage, the state simply doesn’t get to decide what constitutes marriage, nor do individuals. I, or anyone else, have no power to redefine marriage in our own image. No one disputed the right of two persons to live together, etc., what was disputed was whether for the purposes of the law, that relationship constituted a marriage. Just as a person is perfectly free to imagine that their go-kart is a car, the licensing agency is perfectly entitled to reject their application for registration given that what they purported to be a car was not a car.

    Where do you stand on gender identity? Are people perfectly free to assign their sex as they please on their birth certificates and other official documentation?

  38. The BigBlueCat

    Wasn’t there a song back int he 70’s … Mark “Jacko” Jackson? It had the line “I’m an individual, you can’t fool me”. Sound like anyone we know?

    Like the pure Socialism being sought by most on the left, the Randian/Individualist utopia is impossible to locate. Unless it is merely a state of mind, that is. And even then …

    As Ayn Rand wrote in 1946, and as every adult who chooses to think can now appreciate,

    “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

    What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

    If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

    There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

    But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

    The term “the greatest good for the greatest number” is from where, exactly? And when has “good” ever depended on “the greatest number” for “good” to exist? On what basis does Rand determine “good” and “evil”? The only basis she has is a relativistic one, since she does not believe in objective morality, and the only basis for determining her morality is subjective – whatever leads to her happiness is good, whatever grinds her gears is evil. Rand’s view is that self-sacrifice cannot result in good. But in her book writing, her interviews, her articles etc isn’t she sacrificing her time and efforts for what she thinks is a greater good (individualism) so a greater number of people will embrace her worldview? Isn’t that hypocrisy?

    Randian individualism is a poor excuse for a political or economic ideology – it is internally inconsistent when it comes to self and it fails to recognise that humans are social and rely on synergy to achieve many great things. Humans working together for a common goal is not in-and-of-itself a bad thing.

    Good and evil isn’t determined by consensus – it is determined by measuring the outcomes against objective morals, obligations and duties. But Rand only has “self” for assessing what is beneficial and what isn’t. This is where Rand and individualism fails the “sniff test”. She is also the ultimate collectivist – she bundles everyone who disagrees with her ideology and calls them wrongheaded, evil, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Collectivists yet does not actually analyse any outcome with objectivity because she has none – she is totally focussed on self and her own subjective happiness. If you disgaree with Rand, she becomes unhappy, and you are the cause of her unhappiness. In life, she was actually a very unhappy person. Well, she’s dead now, but clearly, there are those who perpetuate her myopic, selfish worldview.

    Randian individualism presumes many things: the state is evil, laws curtail liberty, only the individual can determine what is in their best interests, only the fittest should survive, the state isn’t needed for human welfare, etc, etc. But none of these represents any necessity of outcome, only possible outcomes. Only an arrogant absolutist would accept Randian presumptions. Sure, some states are evil (Saudi Arabia comes to mind), some laws curtail liberty (eg. defamation laws, immigration laws), the individual can determine many things in their best interests (but sometimes you need a doctor), the fittest usually survive (but not always), welfare can be provided by individuals (only if they are self-less), etc. But that is not what Randians are saying.

  39. Iampeter

    Dover, I don’t dispute that you have random positions on random issues, for random reason.
    I’m just pointing out you have no understanding of politics, have no theory of government and don’t know how to put forward a political argument.

    In the absence of this, all you have are these false analogies, non-sequiturs and self contradiction.

  40. dover_beach

    Nothing more than bluster.

    BTW, leave the logical fallacies aside, although you continually commit them, you simply don’t have the capacity to recognize them.

  41. dover_beach

    I should also add that your reply above further demonstrates the truth of my earlier observation: We all know that the reason you studiously avoid responding to my pointed questions on immigration, for instance, is that you are afraid the answer will jeopardize the entire edifice of Randianism (which is an intellectual prison in which you have voluntarily sought shelter). That is why you engage, when you are most vulnerable, in furious, though comically inept, hyperbole and invective; in order to protect a decrepit and failed ideology.
    You simply lack the courage of your convictions. That is obvious.

  42. Iampeter

    Again, you are just projecting.

  43. dover_beach

    No, I argue the case. Compare my 1.33 pm to your 4.07 pm.

  44. Iampeter

    Right, because no other threads where we’ve thoroughly covered the exact same things, over and over have never happened.
    And you still haven’t argued anything. You committed a few fallacies and contradicted yourself. Then accused me of doing what you’ve just done, lol. Every thread with you is like this.
    I don’t even know what to respond to as it’s all nonsensical. A soup of political sounding phrases conveying zero information other than exactly what I said, “random positions on random issues, for random reason.”
    For me to explain why, would just be a word-for-word rehash from a previous thread which you ignore, or more likely don’t understand.

    You can easily prove me wrong. Just make a political argument, instead of telling me random statements and jumping to random illogical conclusions.

    But you can’t can you? You don’t even know what one sounds like, even though I’ve given you tons of examples you could copy by now.

  45. dover_beach

    Bluster and armwaving are not arguments, Iampeter. You have provided nothing to counter the following: If the state can enforce your property rights, it’s a mystery why it can’t police its own territorial jurisdiction given that a community has established such a territorial jurisdiction, and empowered its police force and armed services to preserve its territorial integrity. And just as I can have no right to enter your property, I can have no right to enter a territorial jurisdiction I am not a member of.

  46. Iampeter

    *facepalm* because no response is possible to incoherent, self contradictory nonsense. Why do you keep reposting the same nonsense?
    For example, just starting with your first sentence, “if the state can enforce your property rights, it’s a mystery why it can’t police its own territorial jurisdiction.”
    Who says it can’t?
    By “police its own territorial jurisdiction” do you mean immigration?
    OR
    By “police its own territorial jurisdiction” do you mean national security?
    This is such vague phrasing that someone who knows what he is talking about would never use.
    Also, you don’t understand that immigration and national security are entirely separate issues? I’m only assuming that’s that’s the issues you meant, because it’s not at all clear from your sentence of vagueness.
    Also, what does a state’s position on property rights, have to do with it’s position on, “territorial jurisdiction?”
    Are you saying North Korea which doesn’t protect property rights, therefore has no, “territorial jurisdiction?”
    What do you mean by “enforce your property rights?”
    Did you mean “protect property rights”, or something else? The answer to this can change the meaning of the entire sentence.
    Are you saying a random position the state has on one issue, determines the random position you WANT it to have on another issue? Do you think that constitutes a, “political argument?”
    Why do you think the state should “enforce your property rights,” whatever that means?
    Also, assuming you meant, “immigration” and assuming you meant, “protects property rights,” you’re argument amounts to, “because the state protects property rights, it should regulation immigration,” but that would be a violation of property rights, so you’ve contradicted yourself.

    All this and it’s just your first sentence. NOTHING in it makes any sense, but you want me to respond to the rest of this nonsense too?

    So, like I said, “all you have are these false analogies, non-sequiturs and self contradiction.”

    You know nothing about politics.
    You have no clue how to discuss the subject.
    This thread proves this without any room for doubt and no discussion on a subject you are this totally confused about is possible with you.

  47. dover_beach

    No, no, you aren’t confused, you are feigning confusion so as to avoid the obvious. In the same manner that a state can evict someone from your property on your request (enforce your property rights), the state can refuse entry or evict non-members from its territorial jurisdiction on behalf of its members (police its own territorial jurisdiction. This is simply the case because no one enjoys an unqualified right of movement. You clearly see this implication and so are going about pretending to be confused by this phrase, or finding that purportedly ‘ambiguous’ word.

  48. dover_beach

    Why do you think the state should “enforce your property rights,” whatever that means?

    If the police remove an intruder from my premises it is enforcing my property rights. To dispute this is to engage in a particularly ineffectual form of dissembling.

  49. Tel

    Troll-feeding is alive and well on the Cat.

    Most amusing..

    Around here, the trolls feed each other … and the sheep are nervous.

    Just as a little aside though, I don’t think that Karl Marx really was a devout Christian.

  50. Kneel

    “There is no middle.”

    “That because rights protecting governments to the degree I’d like to see them don’t exist, we shouldn’t support them?”

    So, now there’s no ends, as well as no middle.
    I think you have a hold of… nothing.

    Bye.

  51. Iampeter

    You clearly see this implication and so are going about pretending to be confused by this phrase, or finding that purportedly ‘ambiguous’ word.

    I’m clearly explaining to you that this is a non-sequitur.
    It is also a contradiction because you’re argument amounts to using defense of property rights to justify violating property rights.

    This has been explained for the last time. Either you get it or you don’t, but I’m not holding my breath.

    If you knew anything about politics, you could make a political argument, not resort to logical fallacies, as you grasp at straws instead of conceding.

    So, now there’s no ends, as well as no middle.
    I think you have a hold of… nothing.

    LOL you don’t even know what planet you’re on.
    The cat is really home to top-notch imbeciles.

  52. The BigBlueCat

    One wonders if there is some “Critical Theory” going on here …. lots of criticism but few answers. Herbert Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurt School would be proud.

  53. dover_beach

    I’m clearly explaining to you that this is a non-sequitur.

    No, it isn’t.

    It is also a contradiction because you’re argument amounts to using defense of property rights to justify violating property rights.

    Again, no it doesn’t. I’m not defending property rights, nor am I violating property rights. The argument is straightforward. Since we are disputing whether or not refusing a non-member entry constitutes a rights-violation, it can’t be assumed that it does or that it doesn’t since that is precisely what is in dispute. To assume either way is to beg the question. My argument above moves from the fact that just as people do not enjoy a right of entry onto property that is owned by another, they similarly do not enjoy a right of entry onto territory that is in the custody of an association of which they are not a member. The analogy is clear, while the former demonstrates that the right of free movement is not unqualified. People simply do not enjoy a right to go wherever they please.

    The argument is simple and straightforward and you have yet to lay a glove on it.

  54. Iampeter

    Since we are disputing whether or not refusing a non-member entry constitutes a rights-violation, it can’t be assumed that it does or that it doesn’t since that is precisely what is in dispute.

    Yes, determining whether something should be legal or not, is done by answering the question, have rights being violated or not. But this is the first you’ve mentioned rights and nothing you’ve said so far is within even planetary orbit of answering this question.

    To determine if rights have been violated or not, requires understanding of what rights are. Rights are the freedom to think and act in a social context. Only rights violations should be illegal, because that prevents an individual from thinking and acting.
    As such, crossing a border, is not a rights violation and so should be perfectly legal.
    Entering someone’s private property without permission IS a rights violation and so is rightly illegal.
    But notice how I arrive at my position on both issues by applying the concept of rights, not by drawing a false analogy between them and then contradicting myself as you proceed to do again and again.

    My argument above moves from the fact that just as people do not enjoy a right of entry onto property that is owned by another, they similarly do not enjoy a right of entry onto territory that is in the custody of an association of which they are not a member.

    That’s not an argument, that’s the same non-sequitur and self contradiction. It’s also nonsensical. For example, what do you mean by, “territory that is in the custody of an association of which they are not a member?”
    What does that have to do with moving into a country?
    Do you think that’s a description of the abstract concept, “country?”
    If so, there’s another layer of incorrect thinking here as well.
    In short, you need to learn the following concepts and how they are integrated together, without contradicting yourself:
    Individual rights.
    Laws and their purpose.
    Governments and their functions.
    Fundamental ethical concepts that the above two points are derived from.
    Fundamental philosophical concepts from which ethics is derived.
    The proper concept of country.

    In short, you are not ready for a political conversation and need to concede you have a hellava lot to learn.

  55. Iampeter

    One wonders if there is some “Critical Theory” going on here …. lots of criticism but few answers. Herbert Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurt School would be proud.

    What’s happening here is what always happens at the cat. A bunch of kooks and cranks, who fancy themselves insightful on the subject of politics and centre-right for some reason, congregate to pretend to talk politics.
    When someone who actually has some idea about the subject comes along, they get triggered and react with ad hominems, evasions and projection.
    This is understandable, as it’s pretty embarrassing to be older than a teenager but more confused about how the world works than our kids today.
    However, while I understand it, it does get tiresome.

    I haven’t engaged in any “critical theory.” I’ve always given clear explanations and arguments, that shouldn’t even be disputed outside of a Marxist blog.

    The kind of mindless push back I get here, reflects very poorly on the posters of this blog.

  56. dover_beach

    To determine if rights have been violated or not, requires understanding of what rights are. Rights are the freedom to think and act in a social context. Only rights violations should be illegal, because that prevents an individual from thinking and acting.
    As such, crossing a border, is not a rights violation and so should be perfectly legal.
    Entering someone’s private property without permission IS a rights violation and so is rightly illegal.
    But notice how I arrive at my position on both issues by applying the concept of rights, not by drawing a false analogy between them and then contradicting myself as you proceed to do again and again.

    The above is a comical attempt at reasoning through an argument. It’s question-begging all the way through. The ‘as such’ is peremptory. You have in no way sent the scene in order to answer the problem you were asked. How do you know that ‘crossing a border’ is not a rights-violation? You’ve simply assumed that. Did you ask whether the rights of the respective political association (the right of existing inhabitants of that land to self-government) have been violated? You haven’t even qualified your ‘crossing the border is not a rights-violation’ assertion with reference to quantity such that even 1M armed men ‘crossing the border’ doesn’t constitute a rights-violation under your scheme. Apparently, the armed forces must let them cross the border but can only engage when they’ve begun to violate the rights of one or more of the inhabitants. Further, you’ve given us no reason at all to distinguish the entry of a non-member into A’s territorial jurisdiction and B’s property, and nothing in the first paragraph quoted above actually could assist one in distinguishing the two. Further, it can’t even on its own terms specify that a child entering B’s property to retrieve a ball is a rights-violation. Why? If B only became aware of the entry via CCTV the next day it could not be plausibly claimed to have “prevented him from thinking or acting”.

    That’s not an argument, that’s the same non-sequitur and self contradiction. It’s also nonsensical.

    It isn’t a non-sequitur, nor is it contradictory, nor is it non-sensical. It is a clear analogy. You hate it because having conceded the first instance and the principle therein, you don’t like the similarity of the second instance because it too can invoke the same principle which is what you don’t want to have to do. You’ve been unable to draw a relevant distinction that would render the analogy false, so you’ve resorted to simply repeating false baled assertions.

    For example, what do you mean by, “territory that is in the custody of an association of which they are not a member?”What does that have to do with moving into a country?
    Do you think that’s a description of the abstract concept, “country?”
    If so, there’s another layer of incorrect thinking here as well.

    Not at all. Countries are historic political communities of one sort or another. Given that they are historic and geographic communities, people will at the very least be members of one of them at any time. They will also, given PNC, not be members of the others. Pretty straightforward.

    In short, you need to learn the following concepts and how they are integrated together, without contradicting yourself:
    Individual rights.
    Laws and their purpose.
    Governments and their functions.
    Fundamental ethical concepts that the above two points are derived from.
    Fundamental philosophical concepts from which ethics is derived.
    The proper concept of country.

    You have given no one confidence that you’ve done this yourself. In fact, quite the opposite, as I’ve demonstrated above.

  57. Iampeter

    How do you know that ‘crossing a border’ is not a rights-violation? You’ve simply assumed that.

    Except I clearly explained why it’s not a rights violation, because no one’s is being prevented from thinking and acting.

    Did you ask whether the rights of the respective political association (the right of existing inhabitants of that land to self-government) have been violated?

    What are even describing here? What rights and belonging to whom do you think are being violated? How?
    Your issue here is that you have a collectivist and leftist view of government, as something other than existing to protect our rights. Like it’s some group to which we are members, which is not what countries or governments are. Not right wing ones anyway. You’re also incorrectly using the concept “rights.”

    You haven’t even qualified your ‘crossing the border is not a rights-violation’ assertion with reference to quantity such that even 1M armed men ‘crossing the border’ doesn’t constitute a rights-violation under your scheme.

    Because that’s a description of a military invasion, not immigration, so I don’t need to qualify it.
    As I’ve said in previous threads, you oppose immigration, but can’t even define it correctly.

    Further, you’ve given us no reason at all to distinguish the entry of a non-member into A’s territorial jurisdiction and B’s property

    They are unrelated comparisons that you keep coming back to because you have no concept of government or country and are conflating different concepts again. This has been explained in every one of my posts, don’t ask again.
    Also, explained repeatedly has been the fact that even if you did make some distinction here or not, it is not a political argument.
    In other words, you need to drop the false analogy, because it’s useless. You need a political argument, which you don’t have and don’t know where to begin.

    You have given no one confidence that you’ve done this yourself. In fact, quite the opposite, as I’ve demonstrated above.

    This is projection and tiresome.

  58. dover_beach

    Except I clearly explained why it’s not a rights violation because no one is being prevented from thinking and acting.

    But I just showed you that is a poor test of whether or not something is a rights-violation given that a child entering B’s property without permission to retrieve a ball could not be plausibly claimed to have “prevented him from thinking or acting”, especially if B only became aware of the entry the following day, and so on could be counted as a rights-violation. It is simply underdetermined as it stands and requires further specification in this or that circumstance.

    What are even describing here? What rights and belonging to whom do you think are being violated? How?

    The right of a community of individuals to self-government.

    Because that’s a description of a military invasion, not immigration, so I don’t need to qualify it.

    But since people are free to ‘cross borders’ you could have no right to interfere with their crossing until they actually began violating the rights of the inhabitants. They could simply be a group of men who adhere to the right to bear arms. How would you know?

    They are unrelated comparisons that you keep coming back to because you have no concept of government or country and are conflating different concepts again. This has been explained in every one of my posts, don’t ask again.

    Unrelated? You’ve given no cause for anyone to believe they are unrelated. Either provide a better explanation or cease pretending you’ve provided an adequate distinction that renders the analogy false.

  59. dover_beach

    and so could not be counted as a rights-violation.

  60. Ivan Denisovich

    In short, you are not ready for a political conversation and need to concede you have a hellava lot to learn.

    Declaring Dover inferior reminds me of this:

    Mitchell’s mouth has also been busy since he lost to Tszyu, calling his conqueror a “bum” on US television, charging the champion with cowardice, and theorising that the Russian punters would not support an emigre

    Then reality hit:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5bUtA2DbjU

    Your evasiveness has been ineffective against the power of Dover’s argument.

  61. Iampeter

    But I just showed you that is a poor test of whether or not something is a rights-violation given that a child entering B’s property without permission to retrieve a ball could not be plausibly claimed to have “prevented him from thinking or acting”, especially if B only became aware of the entry the following day,

    This doesn’t show anything. Your example with the ball doesn’t look like a rights violation.
    In any case, whether a rights violation has been identified by the damaged party or not, nor how long it takes for this to happen, or if it ever does, or any other irrelevant variable you want, has nothing to do with the fact that immigration is not a rights violation.

    The right of a community of individuals to self-government.

    That doesn’t clarify anything. That’s an assortment of political-sounding words, conveying nothing.
    Are you trying to suggest that a society of people going about their business, exercising their rights, are going to have their rights violated by an individual going about his business, exercising his rights?
    Let me save you any further games of semantics by clarifying that no alignment of words, will every change the fact that immigration is not a rights violation.
    If you want to argue against immigration, you have to make the argument of all leftists, calling for the state to do something other than protect rights. Feel free to do so, if you like. But you won’t be having it both ways.

    But since people are free to ‘cross borders’ you could have no right to interfere with their crossing until they actually began violating the rights of the inhabitants.

    Exactly.

    They could simply be a group of men who adhere to the right to bear arms. How would you know?

    How one determines the difference between immigration and invasion, has any number of answers, none of which changes that fact that immigration is not invasion, which is all that I’m saying in answer to you trying to conflate the two.

    Unrelated? You’ve given no cause for anyone to believe they are unrelated. Either provide a better explanation or cease pretending you’ve provided an adequate distinction that renders the analogy false.

    Which I have done repeatedly in this thread and in others. I’ll repost one example verbatim:
    “Are you saying a random position the state has on one issue, determines the random position you WANT it to have on another issue? Do you think that constitutes a, “political argument?””

    Your evasiveness has been ineffective against the power of Dover’s argument.

    Mate, dover hasn’t made any arguments, just random non-sequiturs and demonstrated the usual, total confusion on the subject.

    I’m still waiting for a single political argument as to why immigration should be illegal, that doesn’t rely on a false analogy…

  62. dover_beach

    This doesn’t show anything. Your example with the ball doesn’t look like a rights violation.
    In any case, whether a rights violation has been identified by the damaged party or not, nor how long it takes for this to happen, or if it ever does, or any other irrelevant variable you want, has nothing to do with the fact that immigration is not a rights violation.

    You’re being incredibly evasive here. It either is or it isn’t a rights-violation, and it doesn’t at all depend upon whether it is identified by the putative damaged party or not. And to say that it isn’t relevant in this dispute is absurd. If your criteria for determining whether or not something is a rights-violation is underdetermined, you couldn’t argue that refusing entry to a non-member constituted a rights-violation.

    That doesn’t clarify anything.

    But it did.

    That’s an assortment of political-sounding words, conveying nothing.

    It conveyed precisely what a political community is for the purposes of this argument.

    Are you trying to suggest that a society of people going about their business, exercising their rights, are going to have their rights violated by an individual going about his business, exercising his rights?

    But we don’t know if the latter has a right of entry into a community he is not and has never been a member. That is the question you keep begging.

    How one determines the difference between immigration and invasion, has any number of answers, none of which changes that fact that immigration is not invasion, which is all that I’m saying in answer to you trying to conflate the two.

    No, no, you tried to dishonestly sidestep the problem by saying that my example constituted an invasion and then I conveniently reminded you that those 1M armed men might simply adhere to the right to bear arms. Which leaves you in the extraordinary situation of arguing that those same 1M armed men can enter a territory of which they are not members and that territory cannot exercise any of its military or police powers until they engage in rights-violations.

    Which I have done repeatedly in this thread and in others. I’ll repost one example verbatim:
    “Are you saying a random position the state has on one issue, determines the random position you WANT it to have on another issue? Do you think that constitutes a, “political argument?””

    The above does nothing of the sort. There is nothing ‘random’ about my analogy which is obvious to anyone apart from yourself. You are merely asserting this because you have no other way of distinguishing the two in the relevant sense; thereby, you have failed to establish that the principle that applies in the former does not in the latter.

  63. Iampeter

    It either is or it isn’t a rights-violation, and it doesn’t at all depend upon whether it is identified by the putative damaged party or not.

    This is what I’m saying, with respect to the issue of immigration, also explaining why this is the case, which you are evading with your random, non-sequiturs.

    But we don’t know if the latter has a right of entry into a community he is not and has never been a member. That is the question you keep begging.

    If by “community” you mean country, then everyone has the right to enter for the reason that it is not a rights violation, as has already been explained.
    If by community you mean some kind of private property, then not everyone has the right of entry, as that would indeed be a rights violation.
    You want to say the former, but can’t make a political argument to justify it, so are making a false analogy with the latter, using intentionally vague terms like, “community.”

    No, no, you tried to dishonestly sidestep the problem by saying that my example constituted an invasion and then I conveniently reminded you that those 1M armed men might simply adhere to the right to bear arms.

    It’s not a “sidestep” to point out that you are conflating immigration with invasion, because you’ve never clearly defined immigration. Or any of the other words you are randomly throwing around.

    There is nothing ‘random’ about my analogy which is obvious to anyone apart from yourself.

    It’s random because it demonstrates no understanding of any the terms used.
    You confused country, with “community.”
    You misuse the term “rights” because you don’t understand it.
    You contradict yourself because regulating who gets to live where, would be a violation of property rights, so you can’t base your defense of such policy because of your support for property rights.
    etc.
    etc.

    Hence, I’m pointing out it’s a random, nonsensical, false analogy. It’s a non-sequitur.
    It’s also a category error, because you’ve confused government policy with consequences of government policy, like property rights, and think one is analogous to the other, but they are not.

    In any case, why don’t you just drop your random “analogies ” and try making a political argument?
    Is it because you don’t know what one even sounds like, but don’t want to concede?

  64. dover_beach

    This is what I’m saying, with respect to the issue of immigration, also explaining why this is the case, which you are evading with your random, non-sequiturs.

    That makes no sense as a response to what I said. For the record, is a child entering B’s property without permission to retrieve a ball, even though it could not be plausibly claimed to have “prevented him from thinking or acting”, especially if B only became aware of the entry the following day,…a rights-violation? If not, why not?

  65. Iampeter

    Dover, the discussion here is about whether immigration should be legal or not.
    I have given the individualistic/right wing perspective, as to why it should be perfectly legal.
    If you have a counter argument, then let’s hear it, so I can point out what a leftist you are.

    But I’m not going around in any more circles, on your random, “analogies,” as you evade conceding the fact that you don’t know anything about politics.

  66. dover_beach

    If by “community” you mean country,

    Me earlier today: Countries are historic political communities of one sort or another.
    For you to continue this charade that you are somehow ‘confused’ about my usage of community is dishonest and easily exposed by referring to the record of this thread.

  67. dover_beach

    Dover, the discussion here is about whether immigration should be legal or not.

    No, no, if you are unable to answer a simple question re what does or does not count as a rights-violation in the instance given you are in no position to determine whether or not a political community denying entry to a non-member of that political community counts as a rights-violation.

    Your evasiveness on this point is noted.

  68. Iampeter

    Dover, me not wanting to deal with your evasions is not, “evasion.”

    We’re done here.

  69. JC

    DB

    There’s no point in trying to have a discussion with the piker.

    You’re wasting your time.

  70. dover_beach

    Yes, we are done if you cannot even clearly answer whether or not “a child entering B’s property without permission to retrieve a ball, even though it could not be plausibly claimed to have “prevented him from thinking or acting”, especially if B only became aware of the entry the following day” counts as a rights-violation?
    If you cannot clearly provided an answer re the above how could you be expected to determine whether or not a state barring entry to a non-member is a rights-violation, given your premises. And why would anyone think you could given this.

  71. dover_beach

    JC, not completely. The instructive thing about this conversation is that I’ve just demonstrated that a key premise in the Randian schema is underdetermined. I hadn’t realized this before this conversation. And it is a devastating weakness too. That is why Iampeter is running to the hills.

  72. Iampeter

    Goddamn you are morons.

  73. dover_beach

    Your attempted barbs are as amusingly ineffectual as your ‘arguments’, Iampeter. Nevertheless, keep running!

  74. Iampeter

    Sorry dover, that is not a barb, that is a statement of fact.

    You are a genuine imbecile, who has confused the asking of an endless series of inane questions, for discussing politics, which you have proved you don’t actually know anything about.

    I did this thread to ensure that moving forward, there can be no confusion, why I ignore your clueless posts in other threads.

  75. dover_beach

    You’re not fooling anyone, Iampeter. I cut through your usual bluff and bluster by asking that simple question above which you failed to answer, firstly, and now, repeatedly, refuse to answer. There is no point taking your claims re rights, etc. seriously if you yourself cannot explain what does or doesn’t count as a rights-violation in even the most straightforward example, as I provided.

    That you have retreated to abuse is typical of a liar and dissembler cornered and confronted with their deceits. Mark my words, I will throw this example at you in every thread you appear if you dare to accuse anyone of being confused about rights, or the like. You can take that to the bank.

  76. Iampeter

    You’re the only one bluffing and blustering, you know nothing about politics, cannot make any political argument, so resort to asking endless streams of politically illiterate questions.

  77. Tom

    That you have retreated to abuse is typical of a liar and dissembler cornered and confronted with their deceits.

    Spot on, Dover. It’s just what leftards always do — especially those who protest they’re not leftards (Hi, Steve from Brisbane, one of the Cat’s most avid followers and author of the world’s least read blog).

  78. dover_beach

    You’re the only one bluffing and blustering,…

    No, I challenged you to answer a simple question – the challenge remains open – and you fled the field. It’s obvious to everyone who the intellectual and moral coward is in this instance. Your protestations to the contrary are worthless.

  79. Iampeter

    I’m the only non-leftist in this thread you cretins.

    Dover, you are on what is supposed to be a political blog. You have been asked to put forward a political argument, not ask nonsensical questions and go off on random tangents.

    Either make a political argument, or concede you’re just another politically illiterate leftist, typical to the cat.

  80. Iampeter

    Not that concession is even needed at this point, the fact you are a clueless leftist and an imbecile is inexcapable.
    I’m done helping you cretins pretend you’re having political conversations.
    Trash at the cat needs to be treated with sneering contempt and that’S all you’ll get from me moving forward.

  81. dover_beach

    You have been defeated, Iampeter. You are just rambling now like an old drunk.

  82. Tel

    So this business about Karl Marx the devout Christian fighting with tent pegs at the Alamo.

    I’m done helping you cretins …

    Brilliant!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.